![]() | Warning This page contains syntax errors ("cite%20note") caused by a VisualEditor bug. Do not copy/move content from this page until the errors have been repaired. See {{
Warning VisualEditor bug}} for more information. |
RandyGreeves ( talk) 20:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is a user sandbox of
RandyGreeves. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
History of Penicillin
(In 1877, French biologists Louis Pasteur and Jules Francois Joubert observed that cultures of the anthrax bacilli, when contaminated with molds, could be successfully inhibited. Some references say that Pasteur identified the strain as Penicillium notatum. [1] However, Paul de Kruif's 1926 Microbe Hunters describes this incident as contamination by other bacteria rather than by mold. [2] In 1887, Garré found similar results. In 1895, Vincenzo Tiberio, an Italian physician at the University of Naples, published research about a mold in a water well in Arzano that showed antibacterial action. [3] [4] [5] [6]
Two years later, Ernest Duchesne at École du Service de Santé Militaire in Lyon independently discovered the healing properties of a Penicillium glaucum mold, even curing infected guinea pigs of typhoid. He published a dissertation[17][18][19] in 1897 but it was ignored by the Institut Pasteur. Duchesne was himself using a discovery made earlier by Arab stable boys, who used molds to cure sores on horses. He did not claim that the mold contained any antibacterial substance, only that the mold somehow protected the animals. The penicillin isolated by Fleming does not cure typhoid and so it remains unknown which substance might have responsible for Duchesne's cure.[a]
In the early stages of penicillin research, most species of Penicillium were generally referred to as Penicillium glaucum, so we cannot identify the actual strains used. Thus, it is difficult to tell whether it was really penicillin preventing bacterial growth.[20]
In Belgium in 1920, Andre Gratia and Sara Dath observed a fungal contamination in one of their Staphylococcus aureus cultures that was inhibiting the growth of the bacterium. They identified the fungus as a species of Penicillium and presented their observations as a paper, but it received little attention. An Institut Pasteur scientist, Costa Rican Clodomiro Picado Twight, similarly recorded the antibiotic effect of Penicillium in 1923.) https://ac-els-cdn-com.libproxy.mst.edu/S0160932716300072/1-s2.0-S0160932716300072-main.pdf?_tid=3a88d811-4b9b-4df8-a02f-fa93b94249fd&acdnat=1552787619_c46a2f0c5dc36e04875f334fe484a22e
Penicillin is a
Microbial antagonism (new section?) -principle behind penicillin
Duchesne had the idea of putting darwin's work on the evolution of species and the idea of the survival of the fittest into practice with microscopic organisms. In doing so he hypothesized that some organisms would be able to neutralize bacterium.
“Further investigation revealed that the strains of Penicillium being used on either side of the Atlantic were in fact producing different penicillins; the American material was termed ‘Penicillin G’ and the British one ‘Penicillin F.’68 There are in fact some half dozen naturally occurring penicillins. They differ only in the nature of the acyl side chain that is attached to the defining feature of the penicillins – the beta-lactam ring fused to a thiazolidine ring.” (Shama)
Another difficulty with producing penicillin is that some Penicillum byproducts are toxic.
During WWII, some scientists attempted to reproduce penicillin, but the end product was often too toxic for humans.
In 1928, Scottish biologist Alexander Fleming noticed a halo of inhibition of bacterial growth around a contaminant blue-green mold on a Staphylococcus plate culture. He concluded that the mold was releasing a substance that was inhibiting bacterial growth. He grew a pure culture of the mold and subsequently concentrated what he later named " penicillin". He soon began treating infections in patients with penicillin. One of his first being his assistant Stuart Braddock. Fleming applied penicillin to his Sinus infection. Within three hours, most of the bacteria in the infected area had disappeared. [7] In 1929. He reported his findings in an article for The British Journal of Experimental Pathology. [8] During the next twelve years, Fleming grew and distributed the original mold, which was eventually identified as Penicillium notatum (now known as Penicillium chrysogenum). He was unsuccessful in making a stable form of it for mass production. [21] Although Fleming did some research with penicillin directly on patients and greatly contributed to its medical use, he did not realize it’s revolutionary potential, due to the impurity of the penicillin he made and the difficulty in mass producing it. Most of his further research with penicillin was focused mostly on the properties of penicillin rather than medical treatment with penicillin. [7]
Penicillin resistance
In 1940, Chain and Edward Abraham reported the first indication of antibiotic resistance to penicillin, an E. coli strain that produced the penicillinase enzyme, which was capable of breaking down penicillin and completely negating its antibacterial effect. [5] [6] [23]. In 1942, strains of Staphylococcus aureus had been documented to have developed a strong resistance to penicillin. Most of the strains were resistant to penicillin by the 1960s. [9] In 1967, Staphylococcus pneumoniae was also reported to be penicillin resistant. Many strains of bacteria have developed a resistance to penicillin.
Manufacturing process of penicillin and its evolution over time.
Origins
In 1939 Howard Florey and Ernst Chain wanted to carry out clinical trials with penicillin. In order to do so they needed to produce roughly 500 liters each week, and to do so they began to optimize the manufacturing process. At first they produced penicillin in anything that could hold water, later they had a special vat made for the fermentation process and hired girls, known as “Penicillin girls” to take care of the fermentation process. As the demand for penicillin’s curative properties grew and the toll from the war hindered production Florey set out for the United States to secure the means of production required to continue and expand clinical trials. With the help of the Rockefeller Foundation, which put him in contact with physiologist John Fulton, the Department of Agriculture and the Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRL), located in Peoria, Illinois, agreed to help innovate the manufacturing process and produce penicillin.
Increasing efficiency
When production first began one-liter containers would have a yield of less than 1% to a yield of 80-90% in 10,000 gallon containers. This increase in efficiency happened between 1939 and 1945 due in part to restless innovation of the process. Orvill May, the Director of the NRRL had Robert Coghill, who was the Chief of the Fermentation Division, work on using his experience with fermentation to increase the efficiency of extracting penicillin from the mold. Shorty after beginning Andrew Moyer substituted sucrose with lactose which resulted in an increased yield. In an even larger increase of efficiency Moyer added corn-steep liquor. [10]
One major issue with the process that British scientists had was the inefficiency of growing the mold on the surface of their nutrient baths, rather than having it submerged. Even though a submerged process of growing the mold would be more efficient, the strain used was not suitable for the conditions it would require. This led to a search for a strain that had already adapted to work. A cantalope in a Peoria marketplace ended up being the best they could find. In order to try and improve upon that strain they subjected it with X-rays to facilitate mutations in its genome and managed to increase it production capabilities even more. [11]
Now that scientists had a mold that grew well submerged and produced an acceptable amount of penicillin the next problem to tackle was providing the required air to the mold for it to grow. This was solved using an aerator, but that caused severe foaming due to the corn steep which was solved by the introduction of an anti-foaming agent known as glyceryl monoricinoleate. [12]
Harvesting the penicillin
What does the draft do well?
~ The article is really thorough about the information and is good at including the names and descriptions of those involved
Is there anything that impressed you?
~ The detail on the discovery of Penicillin
What changes would you suggest that the author apply to the article?
~ The article is missing a flow. I would suggest in the intro of your article describing what Penicillin is in a broad sense, stating who was involved, and then opening the article into the discovery of penicillin. After these are stated first, it will be easier to tell where the article is going and to create a better flow
Why would those changes be an improvement?
~ This will allow readers to follow along easier and get key information on understanding the topic before delving into the history of the medicine. It is hard to digest the history of something if you don't have a general understanding of what that something is beforehand.
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
~ Make sure to rearrange the information and bold/underline any sub-headings so that the article is organized. Make sure all names have links attached since there are a lot of them.
Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
~ The article did a good job of breaking down sections into bite size chunks
Here are a few notes on your current article draft you may want to think about:
In general I think you added a lot of good material that really adds to the article and helps it flow better and connect ideas. The main things to focus on are adding some transitions or dates to some sections to make how each part of its history connects clearer, make sure you include citations (I’m sure you have some but there were a lot of areas which had no citations at all) and the proper formatting for section titles and similar things, and make sure you don’t delete any preexisting information when you move these ideas around and add new sections to the article (also try not to repeat ideas already stated somewhere else in the article when doing this). Finally, just simply read through it and make sure all the sentences themselves flow. There were a few areas were some commas or other things could be added to help the sentence flow better.
Overall good job adding content! Just keep working on refining it some. -- RFoley2 ( talk) 16:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this draft did very well in describing the origins of penicillin and maybe i could come up with the origins of my guys thoughts on the ideas he is famous for.
![]() | Warning This page contains syntax errors ("cite%20note") caused by a VisualEditor bug. Do not copy/move content from this page until the errors have been repaired. See {{
Warning VisualEditor bug}} for more information. |
RandyGreeves ( talk) 20:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is a user sandbox of
RandyGreeves. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
History of Penicillin
(In 1877, French biologists Louis Pasteur and Jules Francois Joubert observed that cultures of the anthrax bacilli, when contaminated with molds, could be successfully inhibited. Some references say that Pasteur identified the strain as Penicillium notatum. [1] However, Paul de Kruif's 1926 Microbe Hunters describes this incident as contamination by other bacteria rather than by mold. [2] In 1887, Garré found similar results. In 1895, Vincenzo Tiberio, an Italian physician at the University of Naples, published research about a mold in a water well in Arzano that showed antibacterial action. [3] [4] [5] [6]
Two years later, Ernest Duchesne at École du Service de Santé Militaire in Lyon independently discovered the healing properties of a Penicillium glaucum mold, even curing infected guinea pigs of typhoid. He published a dissertation[17][18][19] in 1897 but it was ignored by the Institut Pasteur. Duchesne was himself using a discovery made earlier by Arab stable boys, who used molds to cure sores on horses. He did not claim that the mold contained any antibacterial substance, only that the mold somehow protected the animals. The penicillin isolated by Fleming does not cure typhoid and so it remains unknown which substance might have responsible for Duchesne's cure.[a]
In the early stages of penicillin research, most species of Penicillium were generally referred to as Penicillium glaucum, so we cannot identify the actual strains used. Thus, it is difficult to tell whether it was really penicillin preventing bacterial growth.[20]
In Belgium in 1920, Andre Gratia and Sara Dath observed a fungal contamination in one of their Staphylococcus aureus cultures that was inhibiting the growth of the bacterium. They identified the fungus as a species of Penicillium and presented their observations as a paper, but it received little attention. An Institut Pasteur scientist, Costa Rican Clodomiro Picado Twight, similarly recorded the antibiotic effect of Penicillium in 1923.) https://ac-els-cdn-com.libproxy.mst.edu/S0160932716300072/1-s2.0-S0160932716300072-main.pdf?_tid=3a88d811-4b9b-4df8-a02f-fa93b94249fd&acdnat=1552787619_c46a2f0c5dc36e04875f334fe484a22e
Penicillin is a
Microbial antagonism (new section?) -principle behind penicillin
Duchesne had the idea of putting darwin's work on the evolution of species and the idea of the survival of the fittest into practice with microscopic organisms. In doing so he hypothesized that some organisms would be able to neutralize bacterium.
“Further investigation revealed that the strains of Penicillium being used on either side of the Atlantic were in fact producing different penicillins; the American material was termed ‘Penicillin G’ and the British one ‘Penicillin F.’68 There are in fact some half dozen naturally occurring penicillins. They differ only in the nature of the acyl side chain that is attached to the defining feature of the penicillins – the beta-lactam ring fused to a thiazolidine ring.” (Shama)
Another difficulty with producing penicillin is that some Penicillum byproducts are toxic.
During WWII, some scientists attempted to reproduce penicillin, but the end product was often too toxic for humans.
In 1928, Scottish biologist Alexander Fleming noticed a halo of inhibition of bacterial growth around a contaminant blue-green mold on a Staphylococcus plate culture. He concluded that the mold was releasing a substance that was inhibiting bacterial growth. He grew a pure culture of the mold and subsequently concentrated what he later named " penicillin". He soon began treating infections in patients with penicillin. One of his first being his assistant Stuart Braddock. Fleming applied penicillin to his Sinus infection. Within three hours, most of the bacteria in the infected area had disappeared. [7] In 1929. He reported his findings in an article for The British Journal of Experimental Pathology. [8] During the next twelve years, Fleming grew and distributed the original mold, which was eventually identified as Penicillium notatum (now known as Penicillium chrysogenum). He was unsuccessful in making a stable form of it for mass production. [21] Although Fleming did some research with penicillin directly on patients and greatly contributed to its medical use, he did not realize it’s revolutionary potential, due to the impurity of the penicillin he made and the difficulty in mass producing it. Most of his further research with penicillin was focused mostly on the properties of penicillin rather than medical treatment with penicillin. [7]
Penicillin resistance
In 1940, Chain and Edward Abraham reported the first indication of antibiotic resistance to penicillin, an E. coli strain that produced the penicillinase enzyme, which was capable of breaking down penicillin and completely negating its antibacterial effect. [5] [6] [23]. In 1942, strains of Staphylococcus aureus had been documented to have developed a strong resistance to penicillin. Most of the strains were resistant to penicillin by the 1960s. [9] In 1967, Staphylococcus pneumoniae was also reported to be penicillin resistant. Many strains of bacteria have developed a resistance to penicillin.
Manufacturing process of penicillin and its evolution over time.
Origins
In 1939 Howard Florey and Ernst Chain wanted to carry out clinical trials with penicillin. In order to do so they needed to produce roughly 500 liters each week, and to do so they began to optimize the manufacturing process. At first they produced penicillin in anything that could hold water, later they had a special vat made for the fermentation process and hired girls, known as “Penicillin girls” to take care of the fermentation process. As the demand for penicillin’s curative properties grew and the toll from the war hindered production Florey set out for the United States to secure the means of production required to continue and expand clinical trials. With the help of the Rockefeller Foundation, which put him in contact with physiologist John Fulton, the Department of Agriculture and the Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRL), located in Peoria, Illinois, agreed to help innovate the manufacturing process and produce penicillin.
Increasing efficiency
When production first began one-liter containers would have a yield of less than 1% to a yield of 80-90% in 10,000 gallon containers. This increase in efficiency happened between 1939 and 1945 due in part to restless innovation of the process. Orvill May, the Director of the NRRL had Robert Coghill, who was the Chief of the Fermentation Division, work on using his experience with fermentation to increase the efficiency of extracting penicillin from the mold. Shorty after beginning Andrew Moyer substituted sucrose with lactose which resulted in an increased yield. In an even larger increase of efficiency Moyer added corn-steep liquor. [10]
One major issue with the process that British scientists had was the inefficiency of growing the mold on the surface of their nutrient baths, rather than having it submerged. Even though a submerged process of growing the mold would be more efficient, the strain used was not suitable for the conditions it would require. This led to a search for a strain that had already adapted to work. A cantalope in a Peoria marketplace ended up being the best they could find. In order to try and improve upon that strain they subjected it with X-rays to facilitate mutations in its genome and managed to increase it production capabilities even more. [11]
Now that scientists had a mold that grew well submerged and produced an acceptable amount of penicillin the next problem to tackle was providing the required air to the mold for it to grow. This was solved using an aerator, but that caused severe foaming due to the corn steep which was solved by the introduction of an anti-foaming agent known as glyceryl monoricinoleate. [12]
Harvesting the penicillin
What does the draft do well?
~ The article is really thorough about the information and is good at including the names and descriptions of those involved
Is there anything that impressed you?
~ The detail on the discovery of Penicillin
What changes would you suggest that the author apply to the article?
~ The article is missing a flow. I would suggest in the intro of your article describing what Penicillin is in a broad sense, stating who was involved, and then opening the article into the discovery of penicillin. After these are stated first, it will be easier to tell where the article is going and to create a better flow
Why would those changes be an improvement?
~ This will allow readers to follow along easier and get key information on understanding the topic before delving into the history of the medicine. It is hard to digest the history of something if you don't have a general understanding of what that something is beforehand.
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
~ Make sure to rearrange the information and bold/underline any sub-headings so that the article is organized. Make sure all names have links attached since there are a lot of them.
Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
~ The article did a good job of breaking down sections into bite size chunks
Here are a few notes on your current article draft you may want to think about:
In general I think you added a lot of good material that really adds to the article and helps it flow better and connect ideas. The main things to focus on are adding some transitions or dates to some sections to make how each part of its history connects clearer, make sure you include citations (I’m sure you have some but there were a lot of areas which had no citations at all) and the proper formatting for section titles and similar things, and make sure you don’t delete any preexisting information when you move these ideas around and add new sections to the article (also try not to repeat ideas already stated somewhere else in the article when doing this). Finally, just simply read through it and make sure all the sentences themselves flow. There were a few areas were some commas or other things could be added to help the sentence flow better.
Overall good job adding content! Just keep working on refining it some. -- RFoley2 ( talk) 16:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this draft did very well in describing the origins of penicillin and maybe i could come up with the origins of my guys thoughts on the ideas he is famous for.